Posted on 03/17/2013 11:13:56 AM PDT by Rufus2007
On this Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Washington Post columnist George Will criticized a New York Times article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard Stevenson that suggested the Conservative Political Action Conference revealed deep divisions in the conservative movement.
“First, here’s The New York Times headline on the CPAC conference: ‘GOP divisions fester at conservative retreat,’” Will said. “Festering an infected wound — it’s awful. I guarantee you, if there were a liberal conclave comparable to this, and there were vigorous debates going on there, The New York Times headline would be ‘Healthy diversity flourishes at the liberal conclave.’”
“Republicans have been arguing — social conservatives and libertarian free-market conservatives — since the 1950s, when the National Review was founded on the idea of the fusion of the two,” he continued. “It has worked before with Ronald Reagan. It can work again. What I did see at CPAC was the rise of the libertarian strand of Republicanism, which has an affected foreign policy that is a pullback from nation-building
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The reason Conservatives have strayed from the Founder’s view on international affairs is because today’s world lives in instant worldwide communication, not to forget communications with those outside our atmosphere; bioengineered plagues, and ballistic missiles, all of which the Founders couldn’t dream of in their time. I, like the libertarians, and I’m sure most here, would prefer to live in a world where bio-weapons and nukes aren’t needed, but that will never be the case, and as such, strong deterrents like that are needed, as well as a properly-funded, standing military.
I can agree with that.
A libertarian would not give ANYONE tax benefits. A libertarian would eliminate the whole question by eliminating the income tax.
After what I've read, there are 2 types of libertarians. Social liberals who just don't want to pay for the clean up after the party themselves, and true libertarians. The true libertarians wouldn't have a "special" tax for any reason. Everyone would pay a small amount to keep the military and highways working, but that's it. The feds power would be strictly limited to what's written in the Constitution and nothing more.
My post was a reply to post #9 and specifically the last line in that post.
Plenty of rappers, hippies, homos etc never held office, yet their influence created the culture we live in.
And Republicans are indeed complicit for allowing them to run wild.
“Social conservatives alone don’t have the numbers to win national elections anymore. That’s just reality.
The democrats are adding hispanics at a rapid pace to their ranks and republicans will have to add young libertarians. There is no alternative. The demographics are changing and the formula that worked for republicans in the past will not work again in the future.”
And that my friend, IS the bottom line!
Happy St. Paddys to all, I’m outta here for Corn beef and cabbage for the day.
"See posts #20 and #24. While not yet reduced to name calling, the poster is asserting... blah blah blah"
That sounds reminiscent of the argument for government's regulation of markets in order to make them free. Once government is involved, freedoms are curtailed, not enhanced. Regulators will always be highly susceptible to regulatory capture (run by those being regulated) and therefore ineffective.
I agree that society has been so distorted that it would be a shock to about half of Americans if true liberty would prevail. But government would no longer be able to rob Peter to pay Paul. Unions and churches alike would be free to create any type of safety net or assistance programs they see fit. But it would no longer be coerced from producers by the IRS.
Something still tells me you glossed over the second paragraph of my reply. Maybe your knee jerking distracted you?
I never mentioned a “group” or the party, I was describing libertarianism and how it has won extraordinary victories for 50 years and destroyed our culture, our communities and our nation.
I didn’t gloss over anything, but these little nothing posts that you keep making to me are senseless.
What a crock, 1790 America would have had libertarians hanging from trees.
Sodom and Gomorah was full of libertarians, America wasn’t, that is a recent occurrence of the last 50 years as libertarianism swept America and has given us this destroyed culture and created an atmosphere where the Christians and God are to be weeded out of our ever more “libertarian” culture, the culture that first came to dominate in the Ghettos.
There are economic benefits besides income tax breaks, the services and other legal rights for example.
Homosexuals simply don’t deserve marriage because they will not reproduce for civilized society.
By your lucid, intelligent, well reasoned arguement I have no choice but to accept that anti-libertarians are not the agressors and the nasty, uncivil discourse that emerges on these threads must be the fault of the libertarians.
Oh, they existed, they just didn't have a political movement promoting them, public promotion of them would have been dealt with severely, libertarianism did not even exist then.
You have to look at the last 60 years to see libertarianism explode into America, leading to the acceptance of the left's morality and the suppression of Christianity and conservatism, and the natural growth of government that libertarianism requires and creates.
And you thought switching your argument to being petty about free speech would help you look correct?
Simple and helpful libertarianism test:
“Do you believe the federal government should or does have the power to strike down state laws covering personal behavior (such as homosexuality, drug use, marriage, abortion)?”
If any answer yes they are not libertarians- they are advocates for government power.
The view of the Founders needs no discussion.
That is in no way libertarian. The liberty of the strangers, angels in fact, was not respected nor was it protected by any save Lot and family. It's in no way Libertarian, either, despite the fact that many big “L” Libertarians would condone such depravity. But, even they wouldn't condone unconsentual sex, though. So, you're wrong.
So, you have no point. You're dealing in knee-jerk stereotypes that do not apply to my comments nor do they apply to me. I am a social conservative. Homosexual behavior should be discouraged. Abortion kills a human being. This I believe despite being a small “l” libertarian.
You're incapable of making that distinction, so you flail about, casting wrongheaded aspersions, offending allies that are needed to win national election.
Yeah, I know, what does it mean? How does letting the Mosque, the Mormons, the church of the gay Cavaliers, the church of the Druids, the atheists, and so on define marriage, preserve America?
“Simple and helpful libertarianism test:
“Do you believe the federal government should or does have the power to strike down state laws covering personal behavior (such as homosexuality, drug use, marriage, abortion)?”
If any answer yes they are not libertarians- they are advocates for government power.
The view of the Founders needs no discussion.”
BTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.